Use the links below to skip to the Appendix you wish to view:

Appendix A

Scope and Methodology

This follow-up audit focused on a recommendation we made to Justice in our October 2014 report related to sexual assault evidence
kits and the RADS program.

Table A
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them
Audit Objective		Method
1	To report to the Legislature about the effectiveness of its RADS program and to better inform decisions about expanding the number of analyzed sexual assault evidence kits, Justice should amend its agreements with the counties participating in the RADS program to require those counties to report case outcome information, such as arrests and convictions for the sexual assault evidence kits Justice has analyzed under the program. Justice should then report annually to the Legislature about those case outcomes.	Reviewed Justice’s MOUs to determine whether Justice included case outcome reporting requirements, had MOUs with all RADS participants, and obtained all necessary signatures on the MOUs. Obtained and reviewed documentation of trainings that Justice provided to reporting agencies to determine whether they informed RADS participants of the requirement to report outcome information, and whether they included information on how to properly do so. Interviewed staff at Justice to determine the extent to which Justice has reviewed its RADS data to identify reporting agencies that have not provided or updated case outcome data, and the extent to which Justice has followed up with those agencies to obtain the data. Collected and reviewed Justice’s data on the total number of hits generated from profiles uploaded to CODIS between April 1, 2015, and March 26, 2018, and the case outcome data that Justice obtained from RADS participants. Reviewed the data to identify inaccuracies and interviewed staff at Justice regarding its processes for ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the data. Obtained case outcome information from the Chico, Fairfield, and Fresno police departments for all cases associated with hits generated from profiles uploaded to CODIS through the RADS program between April 1, 2015, and March 26, 2018 (which were the most recent data available at the time we began our review). We selected these agencies because of their geographic location and the relatively high number of hits they received during our review period. We then compared the information we obtained to the information that the three agencies had reported in CHOP. Interviewed sexual assault investigators at each law enforcement agency to determine whether they were aware of the reporting expectations and to determine their reasons for not reporting case outcome information, if applicable.

Source: Recommendation made in the report by the California State Auditor titled Sexual Assault Evidence Kits: Although Testing All Kits Could Benefit Sexual Assault Investigations, the Extent of the Benefits Is Unknown, Report 2014-109 (October 2014), and information and documentation identified in the table column titled Method.

Appendix B

Amount of Outcome Data That Justice Obtained From Each RADS Participant That Received a Hit Through the RADS Program

As tables B.1 and B.2 show, Justice did not obtain case outcome information from law enforcement agencies and district attorneys for a significant number of cases associated with the hits generated from DNA profiles uploaded to CODIS between April 1, 2015, and March 26, 2018, that were processed under the RADS program. Table B.1 displays the total number of these hits and the number of cases for which Justice obtained outcome information from local law enforcement agencies. We would have expected the district attorneys to report at least some case outcome information on all of the cases submitted to them by law enforcement agencies for prosecution. However, because information about referrals to the district attorney was missing for a large number of cases, we were unable to determine the number of cases for which district attorneys should have reported case outcome information. Therefore, Table B.2 displays the number of hits for which district attorneys reported some case outcome information, as well as the number of hits for which law enforcement agencies reported submitting the case to the district attorney but the district attorney did not report any case outcome information.

Table B.1
Amount of Case Outcome Information That Law Enforcement Agencies Reported as of May 2018
LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY (BY COUNTY)	HITS RECEIVED THROUGH THE RADS PROGRAM	SOME CASE OUTCOME INFORMATION REPORTED	NO CASE OUTCOME INFORMATION REPORTED*
Alameda	1	0	1
San Leandro Police	1	0	1
Amador	1	0	1
Jackson Police	1	0	1
Butte	40	25	15
Butte Sheriff	7	0	7
Chico Police	24	23	1
Oroville Police	7	1	6
Paradise Police	2	1	1
Colusa	1	0	1
Colusa Sheriff	1	0	1
Del Norte	2	1	1
Del Norte Sheriff	2	1	1
El Dorado	2	0	2
El Dorado Sheriff	1	0	1
Placerville Police	1	0	1
Fresno	21	9	12
Clovis Police	3	0	3
Fresno Police	18	9	9
Glenn	3	0	3
Orland Police	2	0	2
Willows Police	1	0	1
Humboldt	5	0	5
Arcata Police	1	0	1
Eureka Police	2	0	2
Humboldt Sheriff	2	0	2
Kings	2	1	1
Corcoran Police	1	0	1
Kings Sheriff	1	1	0
Lake	8	0	8
Clearlake Police	3	0	3
Lake Sheriff	5	0	5
Lassen	2	0	2
Susanville Police	2	0	2
Marin	15	8	7
Marin Sheriff	2	1	1
Novato Police	2	0	2
San Rafael Police	10	7	3
Tiburon Police	1	0	1
Mendocino	2	1	1
Fort Bragg Police	1	1	0
Mendocino Sheriff	1	0	1
Merced	7	1	6
Livingston Police	1	0	1
Merced Police	5	1	4
Merced Sheriff	1	0	1
Monterey	13	0	13
Greenfield Police	1	0	1
King City Police	1	0	1
Monterey Sheriff	1	0	1
Pacific Grove Police	1	0	1
Salinas Police	6	0	6
Seaside Police	2	0	2
Soledad Police	1	0	1
Napa	8	1	7
Napa Police	4	1	3
Napa Sheriff	3	0	3
St. Helena Police	1	0	1
Nevada	3	2	1
Nevada City Police	1	0	1
Nevada Sheriff	2	2	0
Placer	14	0	14
Auburn Police	2	0	2
Lincoln Police	1	0	1
Placer Sheriff	5	0	5
Rocklin Police	2	0	2
Roseville Police	4	0	4
Riverside	31	8	23
Blythe Police	1	0	1
Cathedral City Police	7	5	2
Desert Hot Springs Police	5	0	5
Indio Police	5	0	5
Palm Springs Police	3	0	3
Riverside Sheriff	10	3	7
San Joaquin	29	2	27
Lodi Police	1	0	1
Manteca Police	1	1	0
San Joaquin Sheriff	4	0	4
Stockton Police	21	0	21
Tracy Police	2	1	1
Santa Cruz	6	0	6
Santa Cruz Police	5	0	5
Watsonville Police	1	0	1
Shasta	17	2	15
Anderson Police	2	0	2
Redding Police	11	0	11
Shasta Sheriff	4	2	2
Solano	44	0	44
Benicia Police	4	0	4
Dixon Police	1	0	1
Fairfield Police	19	0	19
Solano Sheriff	1	0	1
Suisun City Police	3	0	3
Vacaville Police	2	0	2
Vallejo Police	14	0	14
Sonoma	56	42	14
California State University ‑ Sonoma	3	0	3
Cotati Police	3	0	3
Healdsburg Police	1	1	0
Petaluma Police	3	2	1
Rohnert Park Police	7	1	6
Santa Rosa Police	20	20	0
Sonoma Police	1	0	1
Sonoma Sheriff	18	18	0
Stanislaus	19	4	15
Modesto Police	10	0	10
Stanislaus Sheriff	8	3	5
Turlock Police	1	1	0
Sutter	1	0	1
Sutter Sheriff	1	0	1
Tehama	3	1	2
Tehama Sheriff	3	1	2
Tulare	41	11	30
Dinuba Police	1	0	1
Exeter Police	1	0	1
Porterville Police	8	3	5
Tulare Police	3	0	3
Tulare Sheriff	15	0	15
Visalia Police	13	8	5
Yolo	14	3	11
Davis Police	2	2	0
West Sacramento Police	7	0	7
Woodland Police	4	1	3
Yolo Sheriff	1	0	1
Yuba	6	0	6
Yuba Sheriff	6	0	6
Totals	417	122	295

Source: Analysis of CHOP data for all hits from DNA profiles uploaded to CODIS between April 1, 2015, and March 26, 2018, that occurred through the RADS program.

* Some of these cases may not have progressed far enough for the law enforcement agency to have case outcomes to report.

Table B.2
Amount of Case Outcome Information That Law Enforcement Agencies Reported
as of May 2018
DISTRICT ATTORNEY	SOME CASE OUTCOME INFORMATION REPORTED	LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES REPORTED REFERRING THE CASE TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY REPORTED NO INFORMATION
Butte	0	5
Del Norte	0	1
Fresno	5	1
Kings	0	1
Marin	1	2
Mendocino	0	1
Napa	0	1
Nevada	0	2
Riverside	0	7
San Joaquin	0	1
Shasta	0	1
Solano	11	0
Sonoma	0	26
Stanislaus	0	3
Tehama	0	1
Tulare	0	8
Yolo	0	1
Yuba	1	0
Totals*	18	62

Source: Analysis of CHOP data for all hits from DNA profiles uploaded to CODIS between April 1, 2015, and March 26, 2018.

Note: In some instances, the law enforcement agencies that received hits did not report whether they submitted the associated cases to the district attorney and the district attorney reported no case information in CHOP. As a result, there are some counties for which we do not know whether the district attorneys should have reported case outcome information. Those counties are Alameda, Amador, Colusa, El Dorado, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Merced, Monterey, Placer, Santa Cruz, and Sutter.

* For some cases, the district attorney reported case information, but the law enforcement agency had not reported whether it submitted the case to the district attorney.